ISSN:
1432-1106
Keywords:
Posture
;
Freely-standing cat
;
Central program
;
Muscle synergy
;
EMG
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Medicine
Notes:
Summary Postural reactions to disruptions of stance are rapid and automatic in both quadrupeds and bipeds. Current evidence suggests that these postural responses are generated by the central nervous system as patterns involving muscle synergies. This study attempted to test this hypothesis of a centrally generated postural mechanism by determining whether the same postural response could be evoked in the freely-standing cat under two different biomechanical conditions. The present work is an extension of previous experiments in which the stance of cats was perturbed by a horizontal translation of the supporting surface in the anterior and posterior directions (Rushmer et al. 1983). We now tested whether simple rotation of the metacarpo- and metatarsophalangeal (M-P) joints that mimics the digit rotation occurring during platform translation, was sufficient to evoke the translation postural response. The rotational perturbations were biomechanically different from translations in that the rotation did not cause displacement of the centre of mass of the animal, nor did it result in any significant movement about any but the M-P joints. Even so, rotational perturbations did evoke the appropriate translational muscle synergies in all four animals. Both plantar flexion rotation and headward translation activated the posterior hindlimb synergy (which included gluteus medius, semitendinosus and lateral gastrocnemius). Similarly, dorsiflexion rotation and tailward translation both activated the same anterior hindlimb synergy (iliopsoas, vastus lateralis and tibialis anterior) together with the forelimb synergy. The postural responses elicited by rotational perturbations were biomechanically inappropriate, and caused the animal to displace its own centre of mass away from the stable, control position. The most striking finding was that the group of muscles in which the medium latency postural response was evoked was different than the group from which short latency reflex responses were elicited. These data support the hypothesis that postural reactions are not merely reflex responses to local sensory inputs associated with the perturbation but, instead, represent a centrally generated response, with the muscle synergy being the controlled unit.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00237411
Permalink
